In the previous discussion, we explored whether a project can fail despite good decisions. The comments raised an even more fundamental question:
Where does decision quality actually belong when we evaluate project success?
A decision can be well reasoned based on the information, uncertainty, risks, alternatives, and constraints available at the time—and still lead to an unfavorable outcome.
The opposite is also possible: a poorly justified decision may produce an excellent outcome simply because circumstances worked in its favor.
This suggests that “decision quality and outcome quality are related, but not necessarily the same thing.”
Sustainability makes the distinction even more interesting. A project may underperform against short-term cost or schedule targets while creating stronger environmental, social, economic, or stakeholder value over a longer time horizon.
Perhaps, then, we should distinguish between three perspectives:
+ Decision Quality — How sound were the decisions when they were made?
+ Project Performance — How well did the project perform against its objectives?
+ Long-Term Outcomes** — What value and consequences emerged beyond the immediate project boundaries?
The question is whether these should eventually be combined into a broader definition of project success—or remain analytically distinct and be evaluated alongside one another.
{ Should decision quality become part of how we define project success, or should it remain a separate but complementary dimension of project evaluation?}
And does sustainability make that separation more important?
